309 Comments

Yeah, i agree the rule of law has failed because the capitalists were allowed too much leeway to write the rules. Has it ever occurred to you that our current social/ economic conundrum is the logical conclusion to a capitalistic system? Probably not. That would be like true believers contemplating that God is maybe the devil. All hail the invisible hand of the market.

I guess i just don't know what capitalism is then. It is as foreign to me as a monarchy. I guess that has to do with the fact that I am a child of the Reagan Revolution. The mythical capitalism that everyone bows down to has not existed during my lifetime, so I truly don't know its benefits.

And I am sure other forms of govt have resulted in 100% (if not better) employment. Oh wait they haven't. Socialist countries with closed economies have failed in job creation and economic growth. The most well off countries are the capitalist ones. The more govt has tried to control the markets, the more trouble it has created.

Quite frankly, there are no numbers to back your 'capitalism is a failure' statement.

I hope you know that your country has $15 trillion is debt which is a result of prolonged borrowing for quite some time now. Well now you have to pay that back. And there are 2 ways of doing it - budget cuts and increased taxes. While I do not have enough data to suggest which of these would a better approach in this situation or if a mix of both approaches should be employed but its high time the US govt reined in spending.

Spending by borrowing is a favorite tool for any govt because it is usually the next govt that has to foot the bill. Hence budget deficits continually increase to fund pet projects of successive govt. And no govt wants to take the unpopular step of reigning in the budget or increasing taxes

you just showed your hand on how little you understand and know about the economic mechanism of capitalism. It is the unfettered profits that resulted in the high debt. It is the unfettered profitsthat caused the unemployment. It is the unfettered profits that crashed the economy.. and now with the budget cuts as a result of a struggling economy the recession will deepen. it's all a BIG FAILURE of a capitalist free market system. If we had a cap on unfettered profits the economy would be on the top of its game .

And how did profits result in debt? May be you can show me the necessary data to back it up? You blabber such nonsense and you actually have the gumption of commenting on my understanding of economics. Seriously. Dude, you are welcome to your opinions but I don't think we see eye to eye on anything. I therefore think this discussion is not going to be very fruitful.

If you compare the new us to the old us...you can definitely say that we are failing. (though I would argue that we hardly have a free market). If you compare us with the rest of the world- I think we're doing alright. There are a lot of areas that we can improve upon, but over all citizens in the US fare much better than the majority of the world.

"There are a lot of areas that we can improve upon, but over all citizens in the US fare much better than the majority of the world." They said, as the airliner steadily lost altitude. Yep, we are making straight "C"'s.

My Dad said, "If you learn a little bit every day, you will be ignorant most of your life."

It isn't that the market isn't free, in Somalia the market is free. It is that the market isn't properly regulated and the engine of success (education) is running at half throttle.

The free market never built an aircraft carrier nor sent men to the moon. Neither would have happened with home schooled scientists, mathematicians and engineers. A well regulated militia is like a well regulated market. They both work better.

The question is who is in control of government. I believe that citizens do have obligations as a part of their social contract. That obligation doesn't permit default of managing the government to others. I can't believe you are serious about your last statement.

I realize my statement could be misunderstood. Let me clarify. People with wealth have a lot of power to make decisions .. but since they were not elected .. they should not have the power to make decisions that will affect the nations health and welfare .. that power should lye with the elected government..

that is why we have constitutional checks and balances. come to think of it, those same checks and balances are coming into play with petitioning the government and peaceful assembly. we the people are truly the masters of our government.

Yes we do. But there is a war going on over the control of government. We the people vs. business and corporation. They have the media on their side.. blinding the people of what is going on .. keeping the people in the dark .. using all sorts of nasty tricks.. We have a small forum obscurely fashioned .. without a petition link ! I almost feel like laughing with the enemy !!

It can seem insurmountable at times - but then you must notice that the word is getting out and around - and can take heart that we are making progress - as this may be a small site/forum - but it is not the only communications hub in existence either.

The republicans in office have been very helpful in that regard as to their roll anyway. The non-supportive (of the constitution) democrats have been playing a quieter game - close to the vest - but that is where they are also vulnerable to exposure = actions or non-actions. The key to identity is often in the issue and related legislation.

We can certainly do better - and i agree, we are trending downwards instead of up. However, I think we are doing 'alright' and I would hardly call the US a failure. We still have time to get back on track.

We don't have a system that is even close to true capitalism. Between the tax breaks, subsidies, punitive regulations, "free trade" agreements and patchwork laws between the states, we have a system that is far outside of the definition of capitalism. Cronyism would be more appropriate. How can you claim capitalism has failed when you don't even seem to know what it is?

I myself am a fusionest The Post Office is socialist and I see nothing wrong with busn ownership as long as there are no
slave wages etc It is about the wisdom of interdependence to get bread on the shelves many hands are involved and all of those hands we should be grateful for that is important not montary systems the compassion towards our brothers and sisters awareness that we all share the same earth and and desire happiness is what is important the current Govt with its ties too the Monsanto and the wealthy is the bad it is unconstitional and against the Bill of Rghts If OWS becomes anti Capitalist Or Socialest it will be doomed
I am the Zipster

All that I mentioned flies in the face of capitalism. We haven't had true capitalism in America for a long time. The system of today cannot be called true capitalism, therefor capitalism cannot be called a failure when it isn't even in use.

As long as you recognize what we have now has failed.. from here we look into "why?" Unfettered profits ie. "free market" , have stripped the economy of it's lifeblood.. nearly clean to the bone. The recovery will be long .. very long.. if it recovers at all .. now with the budget cuts adding insult to injury ..and soon rumours of interest rate increases .. the final blow could be a knockout.

But reality is different. Prices, costs, & competition limit profits. The law is often used by business to unfairly gain profits they otherwise wouldn't get. The law is definitely not something that will help the 99%. A real classic on that subject is Bastiat's "The Law":

The Law

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

Actually, the problem is that imperialism has taken over our capitalist system. Capitalism entails investment in people, equipment and land, while imperialism prefers to liquidate such investments, selling them to the highest bidder.

What has failed and what has succeeded are complicated and unnamed. Makes it kind to difficult to discuss. Pure anything seems doomed to fail regardless of what it is called.

Corruption is the one thing that always, always fails. And it is the one thing that is always, always part of every system. Nobody seems to advocate for it in its pure form. The closest thing to it with a pretty accurate name is oligarchy. In fact that is the system that we have and have been moving quickly to purify it. We can see how well it works e.g. Somalia, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Yemen, and many more. Close to home, there is Mexico. The drug cartels are oligarchs and we see how well that works. To help them out we export 10's of thousands of guns. Now everybody feels safe. don't they?

I would push for a "well regulated" capitalism, but we can see how well that works with militias can't we?

So lets pick a name for a system that doesn't allow corruption, any system, and then put all of our efforts into keeping corruption out. The anticorruption system would be a good temporary name, at least until it fails.

What is the definition of a capitalist? An individual exercising freedom in a free market? If so, what needs to be restrained? Perhaps the capitalist's consumers simply need to make informed decisions about what they purchase. Remember, in a government system of economics the government has all power. In a free market system of government the consumer has all power.

How can a person be truly free without economic freedom? Most of the measures that ows talks about amounts to limitations on individual liberty. They do little to restrain corporations, especially when those corps have the cooperation of a corrupt, overreaching, politically motivated central government.

Markets have to fail but a distribution system can improve because a distribution system may not necessarily be functioning like a market.Further the free markets depend on the unemployment while as the full employment is against the capitalism.Capitalism is same as parasitism.

No, the Extreme Free Market in the Capitalistic system fails. The U.S. has been in this Extreme system for 32 years. The two curves that move everything must come back toward the Command position. It would be like the 50's and 60's where the Dist. of Wealth was much closer as opposed to today where the gap is so wide-the few benefit and rest become corporate slaves, is you have work. These are not my ideas alone, I read an e-book, Toll Booth, by J.C. Pettabone on Amazon. He not only describes the problems, but predicts the solutions. We need a leader to bring the curves back, and We They can't stop was is coming.

No Corporatism has failed - it is different than capitalism. Just like socialism is different than communism - We need an even pull between capitalism and socialism to prevent corruption in both systems.

Until a better system is found the world will not change. If we as a people demanded products from our suppliers they would give them. This is one of the most complex systems but yet it has succeed where its competitors have failed. I think it does need tune but nothing more.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries". "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" Winston Chruchill

Free markets have definitely been a failure in supplying enough job opportunities but they were pretty much working AS DESIGNED by the elites and supported by those who were willing to follow the clamors for FREEDOM to make their jobs disappear.

Capitalism has NOT failed and has been WILDLY successful in lifting vast numbers of humanity out of poverty. It NEEDS to be fixed or revamped due to our numbers approaching environmental limits fast. I really worry about the "Revenge of Coal" and the "Methane Liberation."

We should probably reduce the standard working hours to 4 days x 9 hours a day to reduce excess production, environmental impacts, and create more job opportunities.

U.S. Capitalism has bankruptcy allowances and failures are allowed to go die and start over. Our bankruptcy laws originating in our homesteading the West have been defiled to favor huge corporations over individuals and that prevents "creative destruction" to take its course. Like Yellowstone National Park, fire was part of the cleansing and rejuvenating process for forests to allow new saplings to grow. Underbrush must be cleared up or burned away to have a healthy ecosystem. The same applies to our economy. We keep on "dousing" and not do the "clearing" so our economic saplings cannot grow and eventually we will get the "mother of all fires."

"Revenge of Coal" is the horror show that may be played when the world's largest economies either come off of nuclear power or develop. China and India will develop and continue to increase their usage of coal in absolute terms. U.S., Japan, and Germany will come off of nuclear power but what will be the replacement? Coal??? U.S., China, Japan, and Germany are the top-four economies of the world and India has more than 1.2 billion people. Then we can get heating up of the permafrost in Siberia and Canada (two of the world's largest landmasses) and "Methane Liberation" can become the horror show Act II.

It is the rate of change of rainfall patterns that most worries me because that could affect agricultural production on a vast scale and starve many people.

That may be why we had the New Deal under FDR to fix some of the problems. The dust bowl was actually a man-made environmental disaster that illustrates very well why sustainability is so important and why rainfall patterns are important. The U.S. has not had a dust bowl since then because we adopted more conservation measures so conservation and conservatives in the non-perverted classical sense can be very good for our country.

There is no need to put a cap on profits because profits are rather nebulously defined and subject to all kinds of fudging and manipulation. It is much better to simplify the U.S. tax code greatly, such as going to a mildly progressive income tax with generous personal exemptions and no other exemptions, plus a value-added tax to capture revenue on the spending side.

A profit cap protects the consumer, the manufacturer, employment, generates tax revenue, raises the standard of living from the bottom up, shortens the work week, adds value to the dollar, creates early retirement , allows more money for education, shrinks the gap between rich and poor, did I mention stimulates the economy ! .. And ensures enough for everyone created by the rising tide.

I just wish that what you had written could be true but if you looked at how the western world achieved its prosperity, you would see that the prospect of unbounded profits had played a major part. What drove those people on their arduous and often perilous quests? Often unbounded wealth was the target of obsession. Western consumers have been protected more by the profit-driven competitions more than any cap on profits ever did. This is not to say that competitions exist everywhere where they make sense. A good tax code allows channeling some of the gains from ambitious or innovative undertakings to social goods which are not free and come with bills attached.

I disagree that a cap on profits will prevent the prosperity to be accumulated in the hands of a few. That will almost always happen due to the varying circumstances and random fluctuations. What may be likelier is that the quest for unbounded profits would be inhibited to the detriment of the creation of new wealth which is the foundation on which the general prosperity can and should be built. Dangle the carrot and ride the beast to the best that we can is the way to go.

Let us make it so that the first person to reach the carrot will have the government just behind taking an equal portion in taxes. The proverbial middleman is an illusion -- remember Zeno's paradox? We are all "middlemen" of some wave, shape, and form, relative to how some other people view us. The current U.S. tax laws impose the "highest corporate tax rates in the world" but there are so many holes in the tax laws that corporations pay nowhere near the "highest tax rates." Our tax laws can shame the holey-est Swiss cheese. We may also be the only country in the world which allows mortgage interest deduction on second homes. Hey, if you can afford a second home, why should the taxpayers chip in to help you pay interests on your mortgage loan? Yes, our politicians had LIMITED that amount but look it up, you will probably laugh your teeth off and need dentures afterwards. I can tell mom that I have brushed the skin of my teeth off, too!

To enforce any rule on middlemen, we must first agree and define "middlemen" unambiguously or at least reasonably well to the satisfaction of most people. Try doing that.

A profit cap will not be easily enforceable. In today's blitzkrieg world of finance, most people and even some of the most astute computers with their programs cannot keep track of the profits which require figuring a difference nearly instantaneously. What if the profit cap has been exceeded in some transactions, unwinding them can be very hard to do just as unwinding the credit-default mess is nearly impossible even now after many years since it had started. Perhaps you would say that we can cap the profits on a tax-year basis but even then we would still have leakage into the next tax year or re-adjustments to prior years (remember what tax planning is about?). It would be just as cumbersome and subject to abuses as our current tax laws. I do not see much gain from imposing another layer of "laws from hell" just to attest to the human propensity to devise devilish contraptions that can put sci-fi wormholes to shame.

Yes, and don't believe anything about if it were only "free" things would be better. That is not true. Things would be worse, that is why since the Industrial Revolution checks and balances have constantly had to be placed on the capitalist economic system in order to keep it in line for the benefit of the people.

i would word that slightly differently - keep it in line for the benefit of the rulers - keep it in line so the working class doesn't take them down. the same reason bismark created the welfare state - certainly not for the benefit of the people. the great depression changed everything for the ruling capitalists - worker organizing was increasing rapidly and workers were actually taking over factories - sit down strikes. the capitalists (fdr and keynes primarily) saved the system and the reagan and his boys tried to take us back to feudalism! they are still at it and looks to me like they are winning - even if obama wins he will chip away at social security (the payroll tax cuts are depriving the system of money) and medicare etc - the center cannot hold!

Oh it has. The standard of living in western countries with free market economies gas always been an envy of the eastern countries until we started catching up in the last few decades. Take India, we had a obsession with socialism and the govt went to ridiculous extents to ensure that. It resulted in 1-2% growth for more than a decade, until we reached a point of near economic collapse and started opening up the economy since the 90s. Since then, life has improved drastically. Various companies, whether foreign or Indian owned, have opened up and people do not have to bribe their way to govt jobs, which were few. Back in 80s we had just 2 car manufacturer and one scooter manufacturer and I have heard stories of how people waited for 3 years to get a scooter (cars were out of reach of almost everyone but the richest .01%). And now we have quite a few Indian auto manufacturers along with Merc, BMW, Lambo etc. You can find similar stories across asian countries.

I guess the reason you don't think it has benefited anyone is because you have always seen your country this prosperous and only now due to a recession you see a slight dip in the economy and you hastily conclude the worst.

It is rather funny that I, an Indian, is advocating capitalism, something our country had been dead against since independence, to someone living in US, the poster child for capitalism and free market.

I think you need a broader perspective than just the US and just the present times where things are not the best for global capitalism. I would suggest you read Guy Sorman's "Economics does not lie". It's a good book.

I appreciate your worldview, but believe me, mine is rather broad and not as narrow as you seem to think. I've heard this argument many times and I don't buy it because this is not about comparing wealth around the world, this is about economic fairness here in America. That is the issue. If we cannot reach economic fairness here in our own country then we will never help to reach it around the world. Capitalism enriches the few at the expense of the many. Also, a capitalist society is driven by consumerism so be careful what you wish for.

It isn't about comparing wealth around the world but rather a study of how other countries did under various other economic policies. US has always been a free market economy so you have nothing much to compare against; of course American standard of living has steadily been on the rise, it has lead the world in science and tech and most economic indices have shown positive growth (barring the last couple of years). But when you study the application of free market policies on a previously closed economy, you see the real and drastic difference that free market makes.

As for economic fairness, it's a on-going struggle. Countries must always strive for more and more economic fairness and you can never reach a point where everyone is completely satisfied. We Indians would love to have the kind of parity (or disparity) in income as in the US, and I have seen many here wanting Sweden like economic fairness. And I am sure the people of Sweden too would want more fairness. But that does not mean you do away with the whole system, you simply try to balance it and keep improving.

The standard of living in the U.S. is now on the decline. Real wages have been declining for 30 years. The free market has failed. 22% of our children live in poverty. 1 in 7 Americans receives food stamps (and many of them work yet still qualify), 49 million Americans have no health insurance, college is unaffordable, home foreclosures are up, home prices are down, etc. etc.

As for decreasing real wages, actually total earning per employee has increased in real terms. The wages are just a part of the total compensation and those have fallen. But other components like social security, health care etc have risen faster than inflation and therefore there is a net increase as outlined here http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.html

As for college being unaffordable, I guess Americans need to do what we Indians (and many other countries) do. Here parents start saving for a child's higher education since birth and parents pay for their kids higher education (there are of course scholarships and loans too).

Real wages are what matter and those have been declining for 30 years. Fringe benefits have also been deteriorating. Hardly anyone has a real pension anymore, many businesses can't afford to offer decent health plans, or health plans at all and employee contributions are exorbitant in many cases.

And, re: college. I just don't get your statement. How can people afford to save up for college if they can barely get by as it is. Are you aware of what college costs are in the U.S.?

Yes I do know what college costs in US, I am doing my MS from CMU. Yes, there are a bunch of people who cannot afford to save because their incomes are way too low, for kids of such parents there should be scholarships for the deserving. But then there are people who can manage to save up.

i didn't mean to be harsh since i know we agree on most of this. i am rushing around too much these days so sometimes i am a bit curt! chomsky's article "the center cannot hold" is good and correct i think - what i am afraid of more and more is that the right will win out - we are in for a long decline anyway with resource scarcity putting pressure on our whole way of life and when people get angry fascism seems to be the direction they turn - france and finland should know better but they don't seem to!

i think it is pascal's wager that says if you do not try you determine the outcome - i hope you are right but i am betting against you - planning on buying land in western ny - growing food - getting off the grid and keeping my head down

I would agree that the free market system has never been "free." And while I also agree that while there have been checks and balances to improve this system's responsiveness to the needs of the people, these modifications have even more often been for the benefit of selected, moneyed constituencies. And that is where we find ourselves.

Checks and balances are needed in any economy -whether capitalistic or otherwise. While I and you and everyone else does belive in the inherent goodness of human heart, I am sure we would still prefer to 'trust, but verify'. And a free market needs a govt and laws so that people uphold their side of the contract. Nowhere is it suggested that free market = non-existence of govt. A free market simply means that the govt does not interfere to set prices (i.e regulation).

That is retarded. You have been taken in by suit and tie hucksters. If there are no regulations then there are monopolies that begin to set prices, either through speculation, derivatives or just plain industrial collusion. The biggest hustle American industries ever perpetuated was to make the masses believe that within industries there is competition. How much competition do you believe exists between members of the The National Association of Manufacturers, I.e a union?

Yes agreed. I never said we don't need regulations but that has to be suitably moderated. As for the existence of monopolies, there are very few industries or product categories where monopolies exist. Btw, company that collude do not use derivatives or employ speculation to set prices, what they do is 'price signalling' overtly or covertly. Derivatives are a form of financial instrument which derives its value from an underlying asset.

As for competition, I see it everywhere. Take Apple versus MS versus Samsung or IBM versus HP or P&G versus Unilever or Ford versus GM. Competition is cut throat and the consumer benefits.

No. Free market means greedy people can do all sorts of things to exploit other people on every level they possibly can. Free markets seek profits over the well-being of people. It doesn't work. That is why free markets don't exist and there are always checks and balances. FriendlyObserverB gave a good answer. The uneven distribution of wealth, the huge gap between the rich and poor, in America tells us that not enough checks and balances have been in place in the current system for the last several decades.

Define exploit? Does my employer exploit me when he makes me finish and deliver a presentation at 6 in the morning? May be it is exploiting but I get paid handsomely for it. Besides, the manager who asked me to deliver the presentation at 6am, also has another boss above her to answer who probably has a client meeting at 8am for which he too had been courting the client for months. Is asking me to work beyond 9 to 5 exploitation?

I dont think people do 'all sorts of things to exploit other people'. That's a very negative view of things. There are plenty of companies where employees are taken good care of - examples would be Google, Microsoft, Starbucks etc. They will all disagree with you.

Salaried individuals can be taken such advantage of. The abuse of these people is truly epic and a system norm, accepted as good business practice. Anyone truly wonder why we are here today fighting greed and corruption? It has gone on long enough and now has almost killed the world economy not just the lives of people all across America - but all around the world. Unbelievable.

It's not really exploitation or at least planned exploitation. If a client from the opposite side of the world calls up my boss at the dead of the night to sort out a problem and my boss calls me up and I call up some from my own team, who is the exploiter and who is getting exploited?

My boss's has no option but to answer to the client who is only demanding his money's worth when he calls up at ungodly hours (which is morning at his end). My boss then calls me because I am the one who can fix it and then I will need my team on it to help me fix it. And if I or my boss didn't answer to the call, they would be called out for lack of professionalism.

Routine abuse of salaried employees is a fact. Employers tie a worker to an income based on a 40 hour week. Then they work them for as many extra hours as they want. Many salaried employees work in excess of 50 or more hours every week with no adjustment to their income to compensate for the additional time invested.

Hell, WalMart's been doing the same thing to its hourly employees for years. More than one lawsuit has been filed over this obviously illegal practice. The lengths employers will go to squeeze another penny from the system boggles the mind.

WallMart is also a major employer of people who then need food stamps and medical assistance as well. They take advantage of the partially disabled as well as those who are new to the country as well as other disadvantaged or down on their luck people that they can find.

Well I knew what the job entailed from friends working in similar jobs or even that very company. Sure, nowhere did it say I would be woken up at the dead of the night but I am sure no one else's job description had it either. I could always leave the job and but I did not then because it paid well and the company was doing well.

Ah thats not because of capitalism per se but because of varying degrees of skills of people which again is due to varying degrees of education, motivation etc. That being said, capitalism does not, for good reason, in any way even attempt to ensure equality of wealth. That kind of farce is only promised in socialism.

You're wasting your time, Friendly. Indianstudent, besides being a hypocrite, is pro-slave labor and pro-subsistence wage. He (or she) is almost certainly a present or aspiring business owner with present or future employees. Not that that's bad in itself, but it hardly makes for an unbiased conversation. Read the thread 'Foxconn Bears the Brunt of Ivory Tower Assault on Capitalism" for more insight.

it's a battle on all fronts ! taking back our government, dealing with a huge debt/economic crisis, waking up the people, fighting an ideology [capitalism] that was once hailed the almighty and believed by every citizen to in fact be "almighty" , but now we are seeing a new reality.. we have woken up to a vision of unfairness and inequality..

The Chinese curse equivalent would be "interesting times". Yes we have now one major league - whopping whale of a nightmare situation - all encompassing in every facet of life. We have started to address it. So much to do.

Simple -- if the employers put enough alphabet-soup skills and requirements for the software developers and network engineers jobs, close to no one will qualify. It worked well to get H1B's certified (no one in the U.S. wants or qualifies for those jobs as proven by having no applicants to the [bogus] advertisements) and works the same way again. I think that the main problem is that the employers do not want to train anyone to do the jobs, they just want to have "plug-and-play" to maximize profits, perhaps due to the break-neck pace of technological changes so the new "plug-and-play" cogwheel fits better and is cheaper than the old cogwheel.

By the way, writing special tax breaks for special corporations or individuals works in the same way. If a Congressional aide sticks in a clause into a "MUST-PASS" bill such as defense authorization (or Armed Forces are not paid), budget reconciliation (or the government is shut down), (PPACA was thought to be one so some Democrats roasted it for all that it was worth) etc. and stipulates enough requirements there, the benefits can be targeted to a very specific corporation or individual.

I hired somebody from this web site and I've spent months and months training him for a software development job. Yes, it would have been a lot better if I could have just hired somebody who already had the skills, but that's not really an option because people aren't training for the jobs that are in demand.

But what would a centrally-planned economy do instead? If we're going to blame innovation for the disconnect between the available jobs and the skills of the work force, then how would the Ministry of Commerce solve that problem? By forcing people to train for jobs and take careers that they're not interested in? By stifling innovation? What's your proposed alternative?

I hate centrally-planned economy with a vengeance! If you compare our Wall Street with other countries' absolute rulers, you will discover that "Wall Street" "The King" is NOT real at all. What pulsates in the myriad displays, keyboards, and telecommunication equipments are numbers representing prices/money/capital which is the heart of Capitalism. I prefer the Kingless Wall Street better than having ANY real King. Our forefathers fought and died over that and I am thankful that they had won. That is not to say that Wall Street does not have its warts. We should make things fairer on Wall Street such as more transparency and appropriate regulations. The need for "Wall Street circuit breakers" showed that the unencumbered market just did not work well at all. I propose an apprenticeship program. If you are successful, train someone else to be successful, too, and that is all that I think a buddy system should be and work.

Knowing how pervasive "marketing" is in our culture in the U.S., I wonder how genuine some of the so-called innovations truly are - is version 3.0 truly that much better than 2.0 or are they 90% identical? People may not have enough confidence so helping them be interested starting in K-12 may help.

Absolutely. I see girls being brought up believing (yikes!) that they could not do anything mechanical or techy. Right there, we lost a big chunk of our potential pool. Then our K-12 school system with its strong teachers' unions or the squid-like school superintendents resist changes while our kids learn to be helpless and clueless. Too often, I heard cries of "It's too hard!" Hello, kids, remember that we are the original fire-eating and -breathing people. You have our genes and also our technological/commercial heritage. You just need to have the confidence and put in the hard work. I suppose that we also need to get the skins of the elites somehow into the K-12 school system to dislodge the logjam there.

maybe its because software development should be taught as a trade. with out all the extra bull of 2 yrs of highschool repeat of the 4 r's. writing software doesnt use science or social studies or civics or chemistry or english

Uh well it uses a lot of math. But there are a lot of subsets of software development that definitely could be taught to younger kids on a vocational basis. We need to prepare kids for the jobs that are available, and right now that isn't happening. That's why so many people like me are complaining that they can't find any good developer to hire, at the same time that kids are graduating from college and complaining that they can't find jobs. There is a disconnect. Industry shifted faster than education could compensate.

Hehe, no. The rate of development of new software is increasing exponentially. That's why there is such a strong demand for software developers. That will continue for decades or centuries. The two dominant mobile operating systems of today didn't even exist five years ago. The software industry will never be 'done' and only in a maintenance phase.

Google Plus, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, iOS apps, Android apps, etc, etc, etc. There is a major boom right now in Internet technology and the rate of innovation is increasing, not decreasing. There are at least two different gigantic paradigm shifts in progress right now. From desktop computing to mobile computing, and from physical computing to cloud computing. Each of those new shifts as significant as the ramping up in Internet connectivity that happened in the late 90s during the dot-com boom. More so actually because of the larger numbers of people involved. You use cloud computing every day whether you realize it or not, and that creates lots of jobs for lots of people. Soon there will be more mobile web users than desktop web users, and that also creates lots of jobs for lots of people. Any kid with half a brain right now should be studying to participate in that, because there will be more jobs than workers for decades.

[ I hired somebody from this web site and I've spent months and months training him for a software development job. Yes, it would have been a lot better if I could have just hired somebody who already had the skills, but that's not really an option because people aren't training for the jobs that are in demand. ]

The only thing missing was the disparaging remark that it did not work out because the individual did not want to work be successful and make lots of money.

Sorry.... it was almost like that feeling they say you get when someone is walking over your grave. That shivery feeling?

Uh no, actually he's doing really well and he's a valued asset to our company. He also now has a promising career in software development, since there are so few people training for the software jobs that are in such high demand.

That was a good one. You changed my mind, ( as far as college goes, though I'd like to see the humanities brought back to the public schools. It like math, would be an acceptable curriculum to shove down the throats of our youth. lol.

I agree. I studied software at a liberal arts school at my university. But they're eliminating the program: http://saveufcise.wordpress.com/ So now even fewer people in the state of Florida, at least, will be training for the jobs that are in high demand.

Also WTF is up with bringing in workers from foreign country's to staff positions that can't (?) be filled by the educated or skilled in this country (?). I mean we used to be the technological leaders of the world or at least one of them. When in HELL did CHINA become more educated or advanced than America? I mean they are still in the heat of dawning in their own industrial revolution - RIGHT?

So when was it exactly that they surpassed us in that our Business needs (?) to bring in skilled labor from there? Or from anywhere?

When did our people fall out of the running for understanding and maintaining and improving "our" technology (?). When did our people lose their functional (?) abilities?

Another Corporate abuse and lie to maintain their control and support their greed. Apparently with government consent.

maybe its because software development should be taught as a trade. with out all the extra bull of 2 yrs of highschool repeat of the 4 r's. writing software doesnt use science or social studies or civics or chemistry or english

Capitalism has nearly destroyed our education system. There are many smart and talented but financially poor students that simply opt out of advanced education due to overwhelming high costs.

Society suffers greatly due to students not pursuing highly demanding careers due to the burden of high capitalist debt.

Do you really believe only the rich students are worthy of advanced degrees. Many excellent A students are from poor families, and simply do not have the means to pursue and contribute to the needs of societies high demand professions.

There aren't enough people to fill all of the software development jobs because there aren't enough people who choose to train for them. Not because there aren't enough people going to college, but because people who go to college aren't learning high-demand fields.

If you blame that on capitalism, then would the alternative be for a centrally-planned economy to order students to study certain things? Should it be illegal to study poetry if Big Brother decides that you should be a computer programmer?

If the businesses need to hire certain skills, they should offer compensation packages for students interested. Businesses should pay for student college fees. This would increase the supply of skill. Do you expect the student to pay for the training so you can than exploit their skills? You should pay for the training.

One of the few examples of that kind of model is the US service academies, who invest a lot of money in each student over years, in exchange for a contractual obligation to serve after graduation. Look at the effect that it has: REDUCED numbers of students. If you're going to spend years investing in a student, then you need to know that they're going to be worth it. That's why it's so hard to get into the Air Force Academy or West Point or Annapolis or the Coast Guard Academy. That's why there are so few students at those schools.

In booming industries, employee churn rates are much higher. During technology booms, Silicon Valley workers will jump from job to job every year or two, or even less. A company is not going to spend years investing in a student who may or may not be worth the investment, and who may or may not stick around. And companies need talent NOW, not two or three years from now.

Maybe you should offer more for the positions that you have open, or lower your expectations and hire more than 1 person to tackle the project. I see IT job requirements all the time that are completely unrealistic, and then see that those openings are still in existence months later. There are plenty of people in IT and plenty more who can pick up whatever language you need in a few weeks, but you have to stop expecting everyone to know every specific language under the sun.

Also, keep your technology up-to-date. No one is taught COBOL anymore. Instead of fruitlessly searching for the one guy in your state who is not retired and has the experience in that language; maybe its time to retire your mainframe and get with at least the 1990s. Ditto on any of the other specialized languages. If is isn't .NET, some flavor of Java, or some variant of C, you're gonna have to look harder for your hires because .NET languages, Java, and C variants are what people are trained in.

I'm the CTO at a startup that uses Ruby on Rails, NoSQL databases, and cloud computing. Staying up to date is actually part of the problem, because the workforce isn't staying up to date. Few job-seekers know anything about Rails or Mongo DB or how to manage cloud systems. It doesn't matter how much you offer to pay because there are so few qualified people. It's not a matter of money.

What would the alternative be? If capitalism is to blame for eliminating elevator operator jobs while creating elevator technician jobs, then what's the solution? Should Big Brother stifle innovation, to preserve the elevator operator jobs? Should people be forced to train to be elevator technicians, regardless of what they're interested in? How would an alternative to capitalism improve the situation?

Ruby on Rails isn't hard to learn. I was clicking through a tutorial website that used comics with cute foxes in them, and I could pick that up in a couple of weeks. It reminds me of VB.

A lot of the workforce is out-of-date as well. Its not just an employer issue. You have people who learned languages in school that are not used in industry when they graduate, plus schools that can't just re-write their curriculum each time a new innovation comes out, plus employers who lock in to one way of doing things and still need people who know the old technology. Its a matching issue. The raw ability is there, but there needs to be some flexibility on multiple fronts to get people into these positions.

You don't need to hire anyone from India for a company in Miami Beach, trust me. Your example is a good one. I don't have Ruby on Rails. I can learn it fast, however, and I know VB.Net, Javascript, and C++. You need NoSQL. I have MS SQL Server experience. Can I translate that into NoSQL & MongoDB? Sure, I don't see why not. There are plenty of people like me who have similar, but not exactly the same, things that you are looking for.

The point is: You don't need to hire ANYBODY from India. The people you are looking for are here, in America. Offer the right price or be flexible with the job description (Ex: instead of requiring 3+ years with MongoDB, require 3+ years with database systems. Give preference to the MongoDB guys, of course, but don't discount someone who is a whiz @ SQL Server.) You have the right location. There is no reason that you can't find someone here to get the job done.

That's really easy for you to say, not being in a position of looking for talent. It's harder than you think to find people who are even trainable. The guy who I hired through this site has been training for six months and he's just now getting up to speed on all of the different technologies that we use. How many companies can afford to spend six months or a year training new people before they contribute anything?

That's your decision to hire someone that requires 6 months of training. I'm saying that you can hire someone who has the skills that you are looking for, but simply has the wrong acronyms on their resume. I assume you can train someone who knows SQL to use NoSQL in weeks, not months. No India hires required.

There are not enough software developers applying for jobs, period. It's not about acronyms. I don't hire experienced Rubyists who already have experience with Backbone.js and other specifics because there are just no applicants who already have those skills. You can't find people who are even remotely qualified in many fields.

That may be true in your case, but I also don't know all of the specifics of your situation. Try visiting the local technical college or university. There is a guaranteed pool of people there who are going to need a job as soon as they graduate...

Also make sure that you're not scaring potential recruits away by doing any of this:

You're just not getting this: there are not enough people training for and applying for technology jobs. I hired a student fresh out of Miami Dade Community College and spent three years training him, at which point he left to pursue other opportunities. Because there are so many opportunities for people with the right skills. He's in a great place now, but I did not get a positive return on my investment. Companies are not looking for trainees who require massive investment who are likely to flit away as soon as they develop some skills. Companies need skilled workers who are qualified NOW, not years from now. Not enough of those workers exist. All of your creative ideas about hiring community college students (which I have done) and taking on apprentices (which I have one) and cross-training web designers or whatever to be web software developers (which I have done) are not going to change the fundamental imbalance between the number of jobs available and the size of the qualified talent pool.

Address the issue - lack of awareness and promotion of same. Show the benefits as well as the need. This at this point in time in our economic and world situation should be a prime effort to encourage those who are in school as well as to attract those in the job market. We have not seen any of this seriously taken up by anyone other than the for profit schools which are suspect anyway. This is an aspect of education and government working hand in hand with people and the needs of today's society.

I didn't say to hire people that would take years to train. That's dumb. Hire people with similar skills that can be good-to-go in weeks. IDK what you're doing, but you're doing something wrong if you can't somehow find enough people to get your job done.

Have you done job fairs? I remember going to job fairs that had nothing but Waffle House and a bunch of government department booths, plus the obligatory "are you failing at finding a job? Come shoot some terr'ists in Afghanistan!" military booths. Trust me, the job seekers are there and want something real.

Have you called a temp agency? They find the people for you.

Recruiters? They charge a fee, but you're paying them to hound people like me with phone calls multiple times a week to try and pry me away from my current job.

Tech conferences? There's a million of them, and there's a guaranteed supply of smart people that attend these things.

Is your job listing posted on Dice/Monster/Craigslist/other websites? Or is your opening listing buried under a "Careers" link on your website?

Maybe its your workplace environment? Is it cubicle hell, or is there some variety in there? A lot of employees just want to have a view, some plants, and other things that make office life more bearable.

Maybe its a co-worker that has an attitude problem? Have there been any HR issues lately?

Salary? If you're trying to pay people peanuts to do this kind of work, you're not going to get any bites.

There is no way that there is NOBODY who can fill those positions in Miami Beach.

Weeks? Our last hire had to train to competency with the Rails framework, with the RSpec testing framework, with Cucumber, with HAML, and with SASS, before he could even learn to navigate our source code. Then before he could start helping with new development he had to learn CoffeeScript, Jasmine BDD, and he had to learn about Backbone.js. All of that took months. You really think that I'm going to find somebody from a temp agency who can learn all of that within weeks? You're really not comprehending the problem. Technology companies looking for technical talent are not looking for warm bodies. They're looking for skilled workers who can create things. I'm not asking you for recruiting advice, I'm telling you that there are a lot of jobs out there for people who can do it. Because not enough people can do it. Hiring a software developer in Miami Beach, in particular, is virtually impossible.

I can't comprehend how there is supposedly nobody in Miami Beach that can fill that position. There are people in bumfuck middle-of-nowhere, North Carolina that are finding ABAP programmers and SAP specialists, but you can't find someone to fill your position?

How new are these technologies? I know Rails isn't new, but Cucumber, HAML, and SASS? You're probably right; these technologies might be "too new" for you to find people that are experienced in them.

What would happen if you switched to something that was more universally taught, like .NET and SQL Server? I don't know of any college programs that offer Rails & Backbone.js training, but practically every school teaches students how to code using some form of Microsoft technology.

Heck, you might have a business opportunity on your hands with training other people in how to code Rails, etc. Instead of trying to find these people, charge for training and then hire the best students for the real business.

Or just relocate if this is really an issue. I would weep for you if you tried to find Ruby developers in Morganton, NC, but not if you set up shop in Raleigh, NC.

You seem to think that I'm asking you for recruiting advice. I'm not. I'm trying to tell you that there are zillions of web and mobile software development jobs available that companies are having trouble filling. There are plenty of other high-demand fields that are talent poor.

It's very hard to hire in a lot of different fields right now. Why do you think that the H1-B visa exists? Why do you think that the US keeps increasing the number of H1-B visas for Indians? Because we can't find Americans to fill the jobs. The jobs are advertised, they're just not filled.

What should capitalism do, instead of creating those jobs? Should a centrally-planned economy prevent the invention of automated telephone switch boards, in the interest of preserving jobs for telephone switch board operators? Should the government stifle elevator technology R&D in order to preserve jobs for elevator operators?

My point is that you have to pick between creative destruction and the status quo. Capitalism embraces creative destruction.

No - you are soooo deluded. Those visas are supposed to allow people into the country to go to school not to come here and work, these visas exist due to more corporate corruption and manipulation of the government.
It is like importing your outsourced slave labor. Wonder what the pay and benefit package looks like.

Most fine-print, alphabet-soup skills and requirements advertisements for technical jobs are actually for satisfying labor certification requirements for jobs which have CURRENT H1B workers. The advertisements are BOGUS. There are NO vacancies there unless you count kicking out an existing H1B worker as a vacancy. Corporations need to run those to continue employing the H1B's to prove that the U.S. CANNOT fill those positions, ergo the fine-print, alphabet-soup requirements, and long runs of those advertisements. They basically say, "Americans need not apply!"

There are lots of vacancies. It's very difficult to hire people in many industries. I was so desperate to hire software developers a few months ago that I spent months HERE on this web site, begging for applicants. One person applied. There are plenty of jobs available, but the American workforce doesn't have the skills to apply for them.

I hire people based on their abilities, regardless of where they're physically located. I never even asked the guy who I hired through this site where he was located. He could have been in Argentina, I don't care. Turns out he's in Connecticut. You have to cast a very wide net when you're hiring in an industry with so few potential candidates. People whining about unemployment should put some research into which fields are currently hiring, because many employers are desperate for applicants.

There is currently a boom in Internet technology, and skills related to either web software development or mobile software development are in extremely high demand right now. No specifics, but Ruby and Python developers are extremely marketable right now, as are iOS and Android mobile developers.

These are skills that a high school student can learn in a few months. There are hordes of non-technical entrepreneurs at places like Hacker News who are openly and desperately searching for software developers to start new companies with. Companies like Google and Apple and Microsoft are so hungry for new talent that they pay millions of dollars to acquire small teams just for the talent, not to acquire functioning companies. It's called "aqui-hiring".

Meanwhile, students across the country continue to study anthropology, political science, and psychology instead of fields that are in high demand. Did capitalism cause that?

How can you complain about unemployment and then also object to the idea that people should train for the jobs that are available and in demand? Do you think that the government should artificially create a bunch of anthropology jobs?

Social sciences are real and real important. How can you deny the need to promote awareness of others and the respect of others as we expect for ourselves, and the understanding of healthy society and the aspects thereof? As well as the understanding of failed societies and the causes for such. The need is real in finding and teaching tales/history of the distant past as well as the recent past as well as today's realities.

I'm not denying that, but are you complaining about unemployment? If you're complaining about unemployment then it doesn't make much sense for you to argue that people should spend their time learning non-marketable skills. If you're blaming unemployment on capitalism, then do you think that the government should artificially create millions of jobs in the social sciences?

Or perhaps to honest and considerate of others real needs as well as environmental health. Yep sure is a handicap in business to have a social conscience and understanding of responsibility and accountability.

Good point, there is not a capitalist in the world that is concerned with the consumers credit card debt. In fact many middlemen capitalists will supply the consumer with their own "in house credit card. buy buy buy .. it's all the meiddlemen wants.. buybuybuy moremoremore .. here is a credit card .. don't worry you don't have to pay for five years .. buy now buy now .. no conscience at all .. ..but when they are told we will cap their profits .. they cry about not being able to pay their bills .. bullies usually are the biggest cry-babies.

Yep. Hell it is their right to steal and send people into a life of debt. I say steal because of the fact of usurious interest rates and practices. Again only the ones who don't need the service are cut a break - the wealthy. That is also the thing a very large portion of the population have been led to believe that they need a charge card a ready line of credit. How greedy and insane is that manipulation. Greedy in that is the program push. Insane as it is not recognized as such.

Salesman's best friend make the mark feel guilty. That is the perception that is pushed in media all media advertizing - that you need this and you are so wrong not to get it, that you may even be hurting others by not taking advantage.

Not necessarily. I mean what kind of a discussion would it be if a person was only given what they wanted to hear? How do misunderstandings get communicated for example if no one is going to voice their true thoughts. Differing perspectives are a fact of life. It is the full range of color of experience and background and upbringing that makes up the whole of the reality in which we live, Don't ever be concerned about pleasing or getting a happy reception - be concerned that you said what was on your mind. Sharing of information should not be based on popularity - just truth as it is perceived.

just to be certain, .. how do I counter the salesmans approach..? when he advertises the credit card and uses guilt as his weapon of coericion, how do I refuse .. with equal subtly as to be sure he won't ask again ?

You smile say thank you for the offer but no thanks. You do not need to justify your choice you voluntarily justify only if you want to, and in doing that take into consideration why you might want to justify your action, do you want to spread awareness of a truth you own? Who is the audience? Figure out if you even care about sharing your reasoning. You need not ever volunteer more than you would like to.

okay, but I see it a bit differently.. I see it as they are trying to harm me financially by asking/advertising their credit card to me .. and it is a vengeance that a seek for the attack on my welfare .. just politely saying no thankyou is not vengeance .. the salesman will just ask again next time , and using the persistance method eventually he will break down many defences .. So if I were to reach over and break one of his fingers .. each time he asked .. I think he would than stop his persistence method and harmful attacks on my welfare.. of course I can not do that , this is why I ask how I can counter the question .. so he won't ask again .. because each time he asks I feel violated.. and there seems to be no punishment delivered for his violation ..

In that regard I believe that you already know the answer. No matter how much fun it might be to break the finger of a corrupt and greedy individual a true predator - under the law we are not allowed to do so. Instead as I often times do I say no shake my head and say never again I only ever had one charge card when I was 18 - then continuing I say never again and I may add that they are the worst thing that ever happened to society. Not exact each time but very close as it is the truth of how I feel - I will even at times hear agreement from others as to my sentiments.

I can not argue with that at all - and if the sales clerk has more than a couple of functioning synapses it may very well learn not to push. I hate pushy. I have told many that I did not want the extended coverage and had them agree that it often does not make sense to get it. I have also received a few blank stares (startled kinda) only one veiled look of contempt that disappeared quick when I returned a not so veiled look.

I look at it as - what is being sold - does it have an actual value to the purchaser? I mean just because someone is at a sales desk does not mean they are outright evil - it depends on the product. Many people do well in sales because they are naturally social and outgoing. There are good uses for sales people to market goods and not everyone can be in manufacturing. Everyone needs to make a living. As long as it is honest and has real value I do not care. I will wave and keep walking - it's a judgment call in my opinion.

I have a little motto I go by. When shopping for many items there is an additional warranty available.. and if I tell the salesman no I am not interested in the additional warranty .. but he continues to explain and is persitantly asking if I want it .. I call the whole deal off. I am thinking I may do that with the credit card offers .. ..but first explain why I am calling the deal off .. than walk away.

question- can we build up resistence? The other day I was walking by a cellular kiosk.. and the salesman said "good morning" .. I responded .. " no thank you" and kept walking .. it starts with good morning and next thing we are deep in conversation .. once he gets that "foot in the door" .. as I was walking away I heard him say to his coworkers.. I only said good morning" .. haha I laughed to myself .. I love being rude to them .. gives me great satisfaction..

I agree and disagree. I generally disagree with capitalism because it is designed to give the money to those who manipulate the most. It also is designed to continue to burn through resources at a rapid rate with no penalty and if we do not do that capitalism fails. I understand that if we changed the people that this would be less likely to happen and people would be more responsible. However the shift of wealth would only disrupt the people by creating more jealousy and envy. As I do believe we been trying capitalism for hundreds of years and it still has not given us good results in the long run. I actually like some parts of communism but even it has its faults. So does socialism. I believe the only way we are ever going to make a system that works is if we take humanity out of the driver seat. I believe we should automate the jobs and educate the people to treat the resources on the same level as there body. However, we also have people that do not give a shit about there body or health...(YOLO). I mean most occupiers that I have seen smoke cigarettes still.

That IS the problem with laissez-faire Capitalism -- more, more, and more just to sustain itself. It is like a fire that burns, needing resources and labor or it dies. We do NOT let our fires burn unchecked. We do let them BURN in regulated situations such as in our stoves, cars, ovens, water heaters, electric power plants, and almost everything else that makes human life convenient and comfortable. We do not want Capitalism to disappear but we must control it and harness it to worthwhile human ends and make modern civilizations possible and enduring.

Democracy has been the best system going - a true Democracy that has not been co-opted. Due to the fact that a truly properly functioning Democracy - supports it's people - ALL of it's people. A true Democracy improves and maintains the conditions of all in it's care.

Democracy has been the best system going - a true Democracy that has not been co-opted. Due to the fact that a truly properly functioning Democracy - supports it's people - ALL of it's people. A true Democracy improves and maintains the conditions of all in it's care.
↥like ↧dislike reply edit delete permalink

I am hoping many will find awareness in tonight's episode of Frontline and then I hope they become aware of the documentary Inside Job and then -YES - I pray for much success in May. From all of these things I pray for the sharing and spreading of truths and awareness.

White southern rule during the 50's and 60's was a tyranny of the many. South Africa during apartheid was a tyranny of the minority. Caligula was the tyranny of one.
It seems that every system contains tyranny because that is the nature of man, not the system.

Capitalism thrives on perpetual borrowing , it's the runaway train syndrom .. soon the speed of the train is unsustainable for the track it is on .. as with the debt has reached proportions of foreclosures and economic collapse. The high standard of living is false if it is over budget. And capitalism has gone way over budget. Falling victim to the lure of wanting something more.

Not true. Government orchestrated borrowing to support unsustainable social programs is the runaway train that needs to be stopped. Capitalism has not failed, government has taxed the private sector to the point it can no longer support the tax.

oh gawd .. I don't feel well at all .. cough cough .. I am feeling very sick .. like I've been poisoned .. breaking out in cold sweat ... head is throbbing.. and something worst than I could ever have imagined .. I need to lay down ..

Capitalism is natural law. The growth of mankind has been dictated by mankind adhering to natural laws. Economic and societal failures have been caused by the failure to respect and follow natural laws.

Dismissing a natural law is like dismissing gravity (which is itself a natural law).

Have you seen what's happening in the 'natural world' lately? Mass extinction, unprecedented pollution, deforestation, dying ecosystems everywhere. This is because of the capitalist economies' incessant requirement to be constantly expanding. Capitalism doesn't adapt to nature, it destroys nature for profit.

The success of social organisms depends on their ability to cooperate and organize.

Capitalism isn't organized. It's an ad-hoc mess which doesn't even guarantee the most basic human needs. Nature - a free resource, has become the exclusive private property of capitalists, who then charge people for their mere existence.

Systems in nature that do not maintain symbiotic relationships with their surrounding ecosystems DIE.

You can argue against gravity, too. Doesn't change the facts. Any other economic system is destined to fail. Capitalism will be the natural economic system for humanity for as long as it manages to survive.

... and even then, capitalism was a natural law. Capitalism protects the rights to own ones own labor, any other system results in the slavery of the individual. Black markets are everywhere, and are capitalistic by their nature. Why? Because capitalism is a natural law and cannot be broken or destroyed.

Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

(Philosophy) an ethical belief or system of beliefs supposed to be inherent in human nature and discoverable by reason rather than revelation

(Philosophy) a nonlogically necessary truth; law of nature See also nomological [2]

(Philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that the authority of the legal system or of certain laws derives from their justifiability by reason, and indeed that a legal system which cannot be so justified has no authority